Don't hyperventilate. Of course, there is no one way for Americans to think or feel. But some American attitudes are, or used to be, woven deeply into our character. Most Americans have a visceral distaste, dating back to our founding, for truckling to royalty. Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution states: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: -- And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." Kings and emperors have been treated with courtesy, of course, but to bow is -- yes, I'll say it -- un-American.
Here, let the New York Times explain it. In 1994, the Times gently rebuked President Clinton for "almost" bowing to the Japanese emperor. "It wasn't a bow, exactly," the editorial chided, "(b)ut Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan. Canadians still bow to England's Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about?"
President Obama's bows, coupled with his global apology tours, suggest something other than politeness. President Obama has repeatedly reminded us that he thinks we have been arrogant and high-handed in our dealings with other nations. By bowing and scraping, he intends to drop us down a peg or two. The president of the United States really did intend to show obeisance to the King of Saudi Arabia and to defer to the emperor of Japan. He appears to have done so not to flatter those nations but only to diminish his own.